Brunswick school board to consider creationism teaching

Star News Online ^ | September 16, 2008 | Ana Ribeiro

[Soliton]

The Brunswick County school board is looking for a way for creationism to be taught in the classroom side by side with evolution.

"It's really a disgrace for the state school board to impose evolution on our students without teaching creationism," county school board member Jimmy Hobbs said at Tuesday's meeting. "The law says we can't have Bibles in schools, but we can have evolution, of the atheists."

When asked by a reporter, his fellow board members all said they were in favor of creationism being taught in the classroom.

The topic came up after county resident Joel Fanti told the board he thought it was unfair for evolution to be taught as fact, saying it should be taught as a theory because there's no tangible proof it's true.

"I wasn't here 2 million years ago," Fanti said. "If evolution is so slow, why don't we see anything evolving now?"

[farmer18th]

A fine sentiment, but there are no alternate theories contending with evolution. This in not my opinion; it is the opinion of the Discovery Institute and the leading proponents of Intelligent Design.

I think you're missing the point. Even if you've got the "theory-game" locked up by a majority of the guild, surely the guild would not be threatened by a critique of what it claims to be the only theory in town? It isn't just wild-eyed pentacostals asking for a critique, unless you think Ben Stein is among that number?

[js1138]

I’ve written two responses, only to have them eaten by some FR bug. Posting here has become an exercise in frustration.

[js1138]

I’ve written two responses, only to have them eaten by some FR bug. Posting here has become an exercise in frustration.

[Oztrich Boy]

It isn't just wild-eyed pentacostals asking for a critique, unless you think Ben Stein is among that number?

No. I think he's a lawyer and a comedian; two professions where total honesty, strict accuracy, and unbiased presentation are not regarded as essential in presenting a point of view.

[farmer18th]

No. I think he's a lawyer and a comedian; two professions where total honesty, strict accuracy, and unbiased presentation are not regarded as essential in presenting a point of view.

You conveniently ignored the scientists Ben represented in his recent documentary, but, even if that were not the case, are you aware how protective of the medieval guild you are beginning to sound? "Evolution is our theory. It cannot be questioned. It cannot be critiqued." It doesn't sound like science to me.

[Diamond]

The fools fight on

Well, as long as you put it that way, perhaps we might expect you to be able to offer a scientific account of exactly how accidental concatenations of organic molecules cause wisdom and folly.

Cordially,

[farmer18th]

scientific account of exactly how accidental concatenations of organic molecules cause wisdom and folly.

But you don't understand. Evolution is our theory. It is the only theory. There is no other theory. You need to have faith.

[Soliton]

we might expect you to be able to offer a scientific account of exactly how accidental concatenations of organic molecules cause wisdom and folly.

Isaac Asimov and Michael Moore

[Diamond]

Isaac Asimov is as dead as a doornail and Michael Moore is fat. I guess dust and blubber have slightly different atomic makeups, but what sense does it make to praise or blame physical forces for anything, or to assume that matter in motion causing whatever it causes is either wise or foolish? Is the moon foolish or wise for its orbit around the earth? How can an impersonal, physical process of chance/necessity like evolution produce something contrary, or wrong, or foolish to itself?

What are you comparing the universe to in order to say that there's something wrong with it?

Cordially,

[Soliton]

How can an impersonal, physical process of chance/necessity like evolution produce something contrary, or wrong, or foolish to itself?

The process of natural selection.

How can nothing produce God?

[Diamond]

The process of natural selection.

Natural selection is what it is - an effect or effects of prior physical causes. There's nothing wise or foolish about physical processes. They just are.

How can nothing produce God?

God, by definition, is not a thing, is not contingent, and consequently, not something that was produced. The question as to how can nothing produce something is a question for you, not me.

What are you comparing the universe to in order to find something wrong with it?

Cordially,

[Soliton]

God, by definition, is not a thing

Good! finally someone who knows the definition of "God". What is it?

[Oztrich Boy]

God, by definition, is not a thing

Good! finally someone who knows the definition of "God". What is it?

Your question is inappropriate.

"not a thing" is the Old English nān þing "no thing" (the indefinite article is intrusive as nān/no was only originally used before consonants.

The Þhing was the deliberative Assembly of the Anglo-Saxon people and by extension came to be used for matters and subjects that were "Thing worthy" of being considered in legislatures and judicial assemblies, or indeed any matter that should be considered.

Saying something was nān þing in Middle English was to say in was it something not worth considering, reckoning, or mentioning.

So "God, by definition, is not a thing" is stating "Who cares? it doesn't matter"

[Diamond]

Clever! I've got it. Why bother using a common word in it's modern, primary sense to distinguish between a non-contingent personal being and every other contingent object when you can use it in its archaic Scandinavian etymological sense to make a funny, irrelevant word game!

Cordially,

[Diamond]

Clever! I've got it. Why bother using a common word in it's modern, primary sense to distinguish between a non-contingent personal being and every other contingent object when you can use it in its archaic Scandinavian etymological sense to make a funny, irrelevant word game!

Cordially,

[Diamond]

You have twice declined to answer the question as to what are you comparing the universe to in order to say that there's something wrong with it.

You do not need a definition of God because you already have knowledge of Him (that you suppress) in that He reveals Himself continually to you through the natural order, through your conscience, and through your very use of reason.

Nevertheless, I will humor you with a definition fit for the occasion. God is that self-existent and self-determined, free of all contingency One Who is the necessary precondition for your attempts to make sense out such notions as wisdom and foolishness that you use, but which you cannot account for or justify on the basis of your own naturalistic world view.

Your unacknowledged presupposition in post #1 of this thread is that there is an absolute standard by which such things as wisdom can be measured and found lacking, but the existence of an absolute, non-material and authoritative standard is a presupposition that is at odds with your own assumptions about the nature of the cosmos.

On your terms, the preconditions for this very discussion are nothing but matter in motion. You have random neuron firings. Other people have other random neuron firings. So what? What the essential difference is between the chemical reactions in the brains of those you categorize as fools and any other chemical reaction you cannot say. So why are some chemical reactions just there, neither true nor false, while other chemical reactions you categorize as true or false, or wise or foolish? The internal contradiction inherent in your position makes it impossible for you to say. Thus, your condemnation of some people as fools exposes your reliance on the notion of an absolute standard of wisdom, which is based on unacknowledged presuppositions and assumptions which you claim to reject.

Cordially,

[Soliton]

You have twice declined to answer the question as to what are you comparing the universe to in order to say that there's something wrong with it.

Please point out where I said there was something "wrong" with the universe.

You do not need a definition of God

Yes I do and you said you knew what the definition of "God" is. Nothing can be said to exist unless it can be defined.

[Diamond]

Please point out where I said there was something "wrong" with the universe.

If you want to nitpick, I did not use the word "say" literally, as if I were actually quoting you using the word "wrong", but merely to posit the logical point that in order for the notion of "fool" to be intelligible at all there must be some standard by which to measure whether or not a designation of certain collections of atoms are silly or stupid or lack judgment or sense. I was positing the notion of "wrong" in the sense of not measuring up to a standard.

Unless you are prepared to admit that the notion of fool is completely meaningless you must assume some sort of dichotomy or dualism in the physical makeup of the cosmos that enables you to categorize some chemical reactions as foolish and other chemical reactions as just chemical reactions. What I am asking you to account for or justify is the distinction that makes some chemical reactions foolish and some chemical reactions just chemical reactions.

Yes I do and you said you knew what the definition of "God" is. Nothing can be said to exist unless it can be defined.

Are you attacking the quality of the definition I gave you, or are you saying that I did not give you a definition?

Since you you claim that nothing can be said to be said to exist unless it can be defined, and you are either unable or unwilling to give me an account of the term "fool", does it then follow that fools cannot be said to exist?

I guess I could then ask you if Creationists are something that cannot be said to exist, who you arguing with?

Cordially,

[Soliton]

either unable or unwilling to give me an account of the term "fool",

The word "fool" has an accepted definition whether God exists or not. Definitions are the creation of man and are arrived at through consensus. There is no great philosophical meaning to be arrived at by asking me over and over about universal dichotomies or dualities. Look in the dictionary under "fool". My definition and yours will be the same.

[Theo]

Why are you even here on FR, sagar? You may not believe that God created “all this,” but that gives you no reason to defame Bible-believing Christians, equating them with flat-earthers, numerology, mythology and Islam.

Did a Christian offend you when you were young? On behalf of all Christians, I apologize that we’ve said or done something that’s led you to ridicule the Creator.